Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Mario,
What do you think is happening in this situation that makes it difficult for Uke to get up from the pin? What makes turning the palm up or down have this effect?

I'm asking because I would like to know more about what you think the phenomenon causing this result is.

From what you just described, I would say you are describing something different then what I was getting from other people when I made an attempt at creating definition "D". To me, Definition "D" has a feeling that nage has trained his way to correctly make adjustments to the situation. But what you are describing, at least from what I read is related to something going on inside of Uke. This is why I said it seemed to me like "proper technique" and mechanical advantage. Maybe mechanical advantage wasn't far reaching enough, maybe I should have added "and/or inherent mechanical weaknesses in the body".

If I were going to make a quick definition of proper technique, maybe something like:
Proper technique: Taking advantage of inherent mechanical weaknesses in the body by means of a superior mechanical advantage.

This definition would allow for things that exploited either nage's superior mechanical advantage, or uke's inherent weaknesses (maybe what's going on with uke's palm in your description?).

Frankly, I don't know. This is exactly what I am trying to discover at the moment why in such positions uke has an inherent weakness. The palm up example has many applications seen in many techniques. The thing is it is not even technique but alignment/position of the body. If the body has inherent weakness by such positions then I would believe the opposite holds true that there are positions that the body would hold inherent strength. Sorry but I don't know what goes on in the body why it has such an inherent weakness.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Here's a video that has Chen Xiaowang being 'rooted' against a couple of different people - the video is corny, and it's Chinese, but it probably the closest video you'll find to the tenryu/osensei deal.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Mario Tobias wrote:

Frankly, I don't know. This is exactly what I am trying to discover at the moment why in such positions uke has an inherent weakness. The palm up example has many applications seen in many techniques. The thing is it is not even technique but alignment/position of the body. If the body has inherent weakness by such positions then I would believe the opposite holds true that there are positions that the body would hold inherent strength. Sorry but I don't know what goes on in the body why it has such an inherent weakness.

I don't know about the specific example you gave, but coming from a Tohei lineage a lot of things happen "palm up" and IMO the reason for this is that naturally turning your hand palm up, adds a feeling of structure/connection to the arm that isn't there palm down in the average person and that added structure makes doing some things in aikido feel easier/better. Now imagine you get that feeling through your whole body and can feel that way without having to "palm up".

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Mario,

From what you just described, I would say you are describing something different then what I was getting from other people when I made an attempt at creating definition "D". To me, Definition "D" has a feeling that nage has trained his way to correctly make adjustments to the situation. But what you are describing, at least from what I read is related to something going on inside of Uke. This is why I said it seemed to me like "proper technique" and mechanical advantage. Maybe mechanical advantage wasn't far reaching enough, maybe I should have added "and/or inherent mechanical weaknesses in the body".
.

Chris,

From what I've seen and experienced, aiki isn't about nage correctly making adjustments to a situation, it's more a matter of nage doing whatever he's doing and uke having no openings and no connection to nage's center, and having to try to react to something that they can't source.

"Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men" - Thomas Henry Huxley

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Robert Roeser wrote:

Here's a video that has Chen Xiaowang being 'rooted' against a couple of different people - the video is corny, and it's Chinese, but it probably the closest video you'll find to the tenryu/osensei deal.

I don't speak Chinese but I would like to know what the strongman is saying at the end after pushing on CXW.

And the interesting thing is on the multiplicity of what it causing the strong man's strength to fail
Is it really failing? In the purest sense...no! His strength is actually being applied. That's why he is tired. It's just being applied to a place where it has much less effect on CXW. There is more than one thing going on to make that work, and actually there is so much more he could do if he wanted to. This is just a power display without too much by way of active jins/aiki.

In more realistic encounters neither would be so dedicated to a static display with no real goal in mind other than a show. They would look more normal and be more fluid. The real work is having a strong guy who knows how to fluidly apply multiple and rapid changing force vectors in throws (jujutsu/judo) as well as set ups and punches and kicks....and then playing with those. Push hands is a playground for learning that and it leads to the ability to handle fighting stress-but only if you are willing to go down that road and deal with men with fighting skills. Everything else is cool as well. It's just choices and degrees on a theme.
Dan

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

By compromised structure and alignment I don't mean that you're disrupted. I mean that you don't rely as much on posture. Even in postures that would not seem stable, you can be stable.

It's hard for me to get at this. But I think what you are saying is that it may simply appear that you are not stable, when in reality you are stable. Is that correct?

Appearance really doesn't matter when we get down to the practicality of what we are doing. As long as you are stable, I would say you are stable, even if it looks/seems like you shouldn't be.

Now if you are physically stable, we can ask, "what is making you stable?" Is it your body, or is it some other "force"? If it is your body (your structure) making you stable (aligning), it is a body skill we are talking about. If it is some other "force", then we can take your body out of the equation, and we'll need a new definition, one that doesn't include "Body skill".

So appearance aside, is the body making itself physically stable, or is some other force making to body stable?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Robert Roeser wrote:

Here's a video that has Chen Xiaowang being 'rooted' against a couple of different people - the video is corny, and it's Chinese, but it probably the closest video you'll find to the tenryu/osensei deal.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

It's hard for me to get at this. But I think what you are saying is that it may simply appear that you are not stable, when in reality you are stable. Is that correct?

Appearance really doesn't matter when we get down to the practicality of what we are doing. As long as you are stable, I would say you are stable, even if it looks/seems like you shouldn't be.

Now if you are physically stable, we can ask, "what is making you stable?" Is it your body, or is it some other "force"? If it is your body (your structure) making you stable (aligning), it is a body skill we are talking about. If it is some other "force", then we can take your body out of the equation, and we'll need a new definition, one that doesn't include "Body skill".

So appearance aside, is the body making itself physically stable, or is some other force making to body stable?

I think structure and alignment is the normal way to prevent your body from buckling and toppling. I think structure and alignment is expressed in the physical orientation of body parts, like stance and bracing. I think most people can recognize it for what it is.

With internal training you condition your body. Over time it changes your tissues. It unifies your body. This allows you to use your body in ways that would not work with a normal body, because the physical orientation of the body parts would preclude stability from structure and alignment. In those circumstances a normal body would buckle or topple.

So I think it is the body itself (lead by the mind) making itself physically stable, but structure and alignment is not all there is. A conditioned body can derive a lot of physically stability from its own integrity and organisation, independent from stance and bracing.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Hey Dave,
Again, I think we need to get appearance out of the equation to better understand what is going on.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

I think structure and alignment is the normal way to prevent your body from buckling and toppling. I think structure and alignment is expressed in the physical orientation of body parts, like stance and bracing.

I agree, and would say something very similar myself.

Quote:

I think most people can recognize it for what it is.

Here we are getting back to appearance, which will get us in trouble in short order.

Quote:

With internal training you condition your body. Over time it changes your tissues. It unifies your body.

This is also true of "external training", your muscles and body tissues change, becoming stronger, and more able. The unification of the body as it is used here is also no different than any other external methods, this is improved structure. From what I'm reading here, internal training and external training do basically the same thing. Is this correct or incorrect?

Quote:

This allows you to use your body in ways that would not work with a normal body, because the physical orientation of the body parts would preclude stability from structure and alignment. In those circumstances a normal body would buckle or topple.

I'm not sure what is meant by "normal" body here. I also think you are suggesting that with an "internally trained body" physical orientation of the body parts is no longer important. If this is what you are saying, we seem again like we are getting away from "body skill", this is because if the orientation of the body is not important, it's not something the body is doing. To me this would mean that another force, other then the body is at work, and we are not talking about a "body skill". How do you feel about this?

Quote:

So I think it is the body itself (lead by the mind) making itself physically stable, but structure and alignment is not all there is. A conditioned body can derive a lot of physically stability from its own integrity and organisation, independent from stance and bracing.

This would suggest that the ground is not important to internally trained body, at least not as a stabilizing factor. That would mean that an internally trained body would not need to be connected to the ground in order to be unmovable. Is this what you mean to say?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Dave,
This is also true of "external training", your muscles and body tissues change, becoming stronger, and more able. The unification of the body as it is used here is also no different than any other external methods, this is improved structure. From what I'm reading here, internal training and external training do basically the same thing. Is this correct or incorrect?

I think they are different. For one thing, it seems internal strength does not fade as one grows older, while athletic strength does.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

I'm not sure what is meant by "normal" body here. I also think you are suggesting that with an "internally trained body" physical orientation of the body parts is no longer important. If this is what you are saying, we seem again like we are getting away from "body skill", this is because if the orientation of the body is not important, it's not something the body is doing. To me this would mean that another force, other then the body is at work, and we are not talking about a "body skill". How do you feel about this?

I think there is a physical orientation of body parts at work in the internally trained body. However the changes are different from the "external" way. It's not so much the direction of the long axis of the bones that matters. For example, changing the rotation around the long axis of bones is another way to change. It would be harder to see too. I think the changes of internal movement are more like that.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

This would suggest that the ground is not important to internally trained body, at least not as a stabilizing factor. That would mean that an internally trained body would not need to be connected to the ground in order to be unmovable. Is this what you mean to say?

You want the ground because without the friction ground, you can be slid away easily. There is not much of a danger of buckling or toppling, because there are no stresses on the body.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Hey Dave.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

I think they are different. For one thing, it seems internal strength does not fade as one grows older, while athletic strength does.

That does seem to be the way it seems/appears, but then again I don't see any internal masters of age winning any kind of athletic competitions against young men. So it might be a theory but I don't think there is any conclusive prof of this being the case.

Quote:

You want the ground because without the friction ground, you can be slid away easily. There is not much of a danger of buckling or toppling, because there are no stresses on the body.

Isn't what you are doing to not "slide away" an alignment? If there are no stresses on the body, where is the force from something pushing on the body going? Shouldn't there be a stress at least at the point of impact? Where is the incoming force going?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Hey Dave.

That does seem to be the way it seems/appears, but then again I don't see any internal masters of age winning any kind of athletic competitions against young men. So it might be a theory but I don't think there is any conclusive prof of this being the case.

Sagawa didn't enter any competitions in his later years, but you will find accounts of him tossing around olympic level judoka in his 80's and the kyokushin kancho joining his dojo.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Isn't what you are doing to not "slide away" an alignment? If there are no stresses on the body, where is the force from something pushing on the body going? Shouldn't there be a stress at least at the point of impact? Where is the incoming force going?

When you're standing on a frictionless surface, the effect of the push is that your body accellerates and slides away as a unit. There is no way to prevent this, regardless of internal strength or alignment.
That's why I said that you want friction from the ground.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

When you're standing on a frictionless surface, the effect of the push is that your body accellerates and slides away as a unit. There is no way to prevent this, regardless of internal strength or alignment.
That's why I said that you want friction from the ground.

Ok, good we agree there, I would say the same thing myself.

Once I read someone ( I really wish that I could remember who) speaking of "centered" and "grounded". This person said that "grounded" was like wearing rubber soled shoes on a smooth marble floor, you stick to the floor and have lots of traction. He then said that being "centered" is like wearing wool socks on that same floor, and if anyone pushed you you would simply slide around, but not fall over. I don't know why, but when I first heard this years ago, it was very clear to me what this man meant by "centered" and "grounded". And that if you could be both centered and grounded, you would seem quite powerful.

So, if the above example is clear, I would say solid structure is like centering. The better you can hold your body, in whatever position it's in, the more structure you have, the more "centered" you'd be. Alignment is like grounding from the above. That's your ability to "stick" (for lack of a better word) to the ground.

If you're both centered, and grounded from the above, or have both structure and alignment, as I describe now, no matter what configuration you're in, you would be rather difficult to move.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

When you're standing on a frictionless surface, the effect of the push is that your body accellerates and slides away as a unit. There is no way to prevent this, regardless of internal strength or alignment.
That's why I said that you want friction from the ground.

Weren't there videos of Ikeda or someone standing on a wheeled cart and taking pushes? I forget what the end result of that video was.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

By the way, I'm not only talking about not buckling the torso, I'm talking about all the joints (shoulders, elbows, etc.).

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Ok, good we agree there, I would say the same thing myself.

Once I read someone ( I really wish that I could remember who) speaking of "centered" and "grounded". This person said that "grounded" was like wearing rubber soled shoes on a smooth marble floor, you stick to the floor and have lots of traction. He then said that being "centered" is like wearing wool socks on that same floor, and if anyone pushed you you would simply slide around, but not fall over. I don't know why, but when I first heard this years ago, it was very clear to me what this man meant by "centered" and "grounded". And that if you could be both centered and grounded, you would seem quite powerful.

So, if the above example is clear, I would say solid structure is like centering. The better you can hold your body, in whatever position it's in, the more structure you have, the more "centered" you'd be. Alignment is like grounding from the above. That's your ability to "stick" (for lack of a better word) to the ground.

If you're both centered, and grounded from the above, or have both structure and alignment, as I describe now, no matter what configuration you're in, you would be rather difficult to move.

How does this sound to you?

Ok, so you say that by being centered you mean you hold the body by structure so that it won't buckle. I'd kind of expect that the structure would be fairly rigid, so you'd be easily toppled, so you wouldn't stick to the ground very well.

But you say you can be non-buckling (centered as you call it) and grounded in any position. To me that sounds a lot like "C". Are you saying you learned to do it in two years? And are you saying it was actually just a couple of tricks and athletic training?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

By the way, I'm not only talking about not buckling the torso, I'm talking about all the joints (shoulders, elbows, etc.).

Ok, so you say that by being centered you mean you hold the body by structure so that it won't buckle. I'd kind of expect that the structure would be fairly rigid, so you'd be easily toppled, so you wouldn't stick to the ground very well.

But you say you can be non-buckling (centered as you call it) and grounded in any position. To me that sounds a lot like "C". Are you saying you learned to do it in two years? And are you saying it was actually just a couple of tricks and athletic training?

Wouldn't the first point be more along the lines of bracing, even if using structure, and thus a no no IS wise?

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

But you say you can be non-buckling (centered as you call it) and grounded in any position. To me that sounds a lot like "C". Are you saying you learned to do it in two years? And are you saying it was actually just a couple of tricks and athletic training?

I would not go so far as to say any position at all, but lots of positions where it "seems/appears" that you shouldn't be stable.But you are stable, simply because you've learned to align your body in many different ways. Just because it "seems/appears" as if I shouldn't be physically stable doesn't mean that it's not a result of my physical structure being properly aligned with the ground. I'm saying that I learned the foundation of what I would describe as chinese internal in a few years, teaching me the foundation of how these things work. I am saying that athletic training is the foundation of all body skills. If we are talking about a body skill, the best way to improve that skill is through an athletic training. Trick is a bad word to use because of it's connotation. Principle, or technique work just as well, and don't suggest a mischievous goal.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

Ok, so you say that by being centered you mean you hold the body by structure so that it won't buckle. I'd kind of expect that the structure would be fairly rigid, so you'd be easily toppled, so you wouldn't stick to the ground very well.

Quote:

Hunter Lonsberry wrote:

Wouldn't the first point be more along the lines of bracing, even if using structure, and thus a no no IS wise?

Quote:

Dave de Vos wrote:

Do you mean the non-buckling of joints?

Quote:

Hunter Lonsberry wrote:

sorry, i meant the line about being not centered.

Ok, yes I think a bracing structure would be unstable against forces other directions. I think that that bracing and stability don't match very well. But If I understand Chris correctly, he can do it.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

I would not go so far as to say any position at all, but lots of positions where it "seems/appears" that you shouldn't be stable.

Yes, that's what I mean as well.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

But you are stable, simply because you've learned to align your body in many different ways. Just because it "seems/appears" as if I shouldn't be physically stable doesn't mean that it's not a result of my physical structure being properly aligned with the ground. I'm saying that I learned the foundation of what I would describe as chinese internal in a few years, teaching me the foundation of how these things work. I am saying that athletic training is the foundation of all body skills. If we are talking about a body skill, the best way to improve that skill is through an athletic training.

So you know how to do internal training, yet you do athletic training because it works better?
And with athletic training you mean running, calisthenics, weight training, that kind of stuff?

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Trick is a bad word to use because of it's connotation. Principle, or technique work just as well, and don't suggest a mischievous goal.

I would rather not call it tricks. I only used that term trying to paraphrase some of your earlier explanations of what I would call internal power / aiki.

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

I think internal training, and modern Athletic training are getting at many of the same things. I believe what you would find lot's of modern athletes doing, and the results they are looking to achieve similar in goal, if sometimes different in method. I would go a step further and say modern athletic training is better then most methods found in internal, at least as far as developing the structure and aligning that structure goes.

By modern athletic training, I mean a process, not exercises (running, calisthenics, wight training)
If I were to outline the process modern athletic training takes, I would say it goes something like this:

1. develop the physical body- this is where your exercises come it. The first goal is to make the body strong. Improve strength, endurance, agility, explosiveness.

2. Learn how to properly use the body. Best ways to move, push, resist force. This is where we learn about structure and alignment.

3. Build procedural memory, sometimes called muscle memory. This is the process of making the actions needed for your physical pursuit automatic and second nature. If you were learning to box, how to cover and punch. If you were learning to wrestle, the holds you would use, and how to get into them etc.

4. Increase calm in the mind and relaxation in the body. This allows the athlete to deal with stressful situations without getting tunnel vision or physically over stressing the body (due to tension)

5. Improve overall awareness and attention. This is so our athlete can "see the entire field" and "stay in the game".

This is is a kind of example of what modern athletic training does. sound familiar? If you study Chinese internal it does. Although most modern methods are better.

When I say "athletic" I know most people picture sitting in a gym all day and getting buff, but athletics at least good athletics is much much more then this!

Re: Defining the word "Aiki" and looking at the phenomenon it describes.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

I think internal training, and modern Athletic training are getting at many of the same things. I believe what you would find lot's of modern athletes doing, and the results they are looking to achieve similar in goal, if sometimes different in method. I would go a step further and say modern athletic training is better then most methods found in internal, at least as far as developing the structure and aligning that structure goes.

By modern athletic training, I mean a process, not exercises (running, calisthenics, wight training)
If I were to outline the process modern athletic training takes, I would say it goes something like this:

1. develop the physical body- this is where your exercises come it. The first goal is to make the body strong. Improve strength, endurance, agility, explosiveness.

2. Learn how to properly use the body. Best ways to move, push, resist force. This is where we learn about structure and alignment.

3. Build procedural memory, sometimes called muscle memory. This is the process of making the actions needed for your physical pursuit automatic and second nature. If you were learning to box, how to cover and punch. If you were learning to wrestle, the holds you would use, and how to get into them etc.

4. Increase calm in the mind and relaxation in the body. This allows the athlete to deal with stressful situations without getting tunnel vision or physically over stressing the body (due to tension)

5. Improve overall awareness and attention. This is so our athlete can "see the entire field" and "stay in the game".

This is is a kind of example of what modern athletic training does. sound familiar? If you study Chinese internal it does. Although most modern methods are better.

When I say "athletic" I know most people picture sitting in a gym all day and getting buff, but athletics at least good athletics is much much more then this!

Thanks for explaining in more detail what you mean by athletic training. I can surely believe that this way of training can produce powerful martial artists. But there is no way for me to determine to which degree this could also produce similar results as internal training: "C" and "D".
Yet you don't agree that aiki versions "C"and "D" exist. That makes me think that your training results are not the same.
I'm trying to understand what you think.